But what concerned me even more was the one on Ellen Burstyn turning down the role Louise Fletcher eventually played in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest:

But Fletcher wasn’t the first choice for the part; it was actress
Ellen Burstyn, who has gone on to have a long and successful career on
the stage and screen. Interestingly, Burstyn and Fletcher look similar,
so it makes sense that the studio went to Fletcher after Burstyn turned
down the part. Unfortunately, Burstyn cites this as the biggest regret
of her career:

“I probably should have taken One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s
Nest. I was offered the Nurse. It was a mistake, but I was spending a
lot of time in mental wards at the time with my sick husband, and I
didn’t wanna go work in one.”

It’s a good enough reason to have turned down the role, obviously,
but Fletcher won an Academy Award for her turn in Cuckoo’s Nest. Chances
are that – had she taken on the iconic character – Burstyn might have
ended up receiving the same accolade. D’oh!

I question Nurse Rachet being an iconic role -- where's Fletcher now?

She's still acting but, except for The Cheap Detective, she's never had a major role in a film worth watching.

By contrast Bursytn makes films and TV shows non-stop and has been outstanding in the last ten years in films such as W. and TV shows such as Political Animals.

But here's the thing, Burstyn might have gotten an Oscar for Cuckoo?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

But the writer seems unaware that Burstyn has an Oscar. She won for Best Actress. For the film Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore.

Directed by Martin Scorsese.

It's not a minor film.

And I'd argue the role was and remains iconic.

And she has five other Oscar nominations. And she has five Emmy nominations (with two wins).

Friday, October 30, 2015. Chaos and violence continue, Canada's war
planes have apparently bombed Iraqi civilians again, the Ashraf
community is again attacked, the heavy rains have returned, and much
more.

In Iraq, there's been another attack on Iranian dissidents.

UNHCR issued the following statement:

UNHCR statement on today's attack on vicinity of Baghdad International Airport, including Camp Liberty, in Iraq

News Stories, 29 October 2015

UNHCR strongly condemns today's rocket attacks in the vicinity of
Baghdad International Airport, which have also hit adjacent Camp
Hurriyet (Camp Liberty), reportedly causing injuries to dozens of people
of concern and some 20 deaths.Camp Liberty is home to around 2,200 people of concern to the Office.
The authorities have evacuated the injured to Baghdad hospitals. The
full extent of the casualties and damage to the camp is still being
ascertained."This is a most deplorable act, and I am greatly concerned at the
harm that has been inflicted on those living at Camp Liberty," said High
Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres. "Every effort must continue
to be made for the injured and to identify and bring to account those
responsible."The residents of Camp Liberty previously lived at Camp Ashraf.

For more information on this topic, please contact:

Adrian Edward in Geneva, on mobile +41 79 557 9120

Ariane Rummery in Geneva, on mobile +41 79 200 7617

This attack was on the Ashraf community. Background: As of September
2013, Camp Ashraf in Iraq is empty. All remaining members of the
community have been moved to Camp Hurriya (also known as Camp Liberty).
Camp Ashraf housed a group of Iranian dissidents who were welcomed to
Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp
Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US
invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations
with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the
residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that
US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person
under the Geneva Conventions. This is key and demands the US defend the
Ashraf community in Iraq from attacks. The Bully Boy Bush
administration grasped that -- they were ignorant of every other law on
the books but they grasped that one. As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush
administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they
would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp
repeatedly attacked after Barack Obama was sworn in as US President. July 28, 2009
Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer
entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents,"
Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later,
on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at
least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six
residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They
were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor
health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011,
Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault
took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way,
"Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within
the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who
tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of
the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and
more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and
other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a
committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on
other occasions when the government has announced investigations into
allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the
authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions
whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Those weren't
the last attacks. They were the last attacks while the residents were
labeled as terrorists by the US State Dept. (September 28, 2012, the designation was changed.) In spite of this labeling, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of
Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva
Conventions." So the US has an obligation to protect the residents.
3,300 are no longer at Camp Ashraf. They have moved to Camp Hurriyah
for the most part. A tiny number has received asylum in other
countries. Approximately 100 were still at Camp Ashraf when it was
attacked. That was the second attack of 2013. February 9th of 2013, the Ashraf residents were again attacked, this time the ones who had been relocated to Camp Hurriyah. Trend News Agency counted 10 dead and over one hundred injured. Prensa Latina reported, " A rain of self-propelled Katyusha missiles hit a provisional camp of
Iraqi opposition Mujahedin-e Khalk, an organization Tehran calls
terrorists, causing seven fatalities plus 50 wounded, according to an
Iraqi official release." They were attacked again September 1, 2013 -- two years ago. Adam Schreck (AP) reported back then that the United Nations was able to confirm the deaths of 52 Ashraf residents.

This is a travesty, the latest attack.

The State Dept did respond with something more than their usual 'we call on both sides' b.s. They issued the following:

Press Statement

John Kerry

Washington, DC

October 29, 2015

The United States strongly condemns today’s
brutal, senseless terrorist attack on Camp Hurriya that killed and
injured camp residents. Our condolences go out to the families of the
victims, and we hope for the swift recovery of those injured.We have been in touch with senior Iraqi officials to ensure that the
Government of Iraq renders all possible medical and emergency assistance
to the victims. We also urge the Government of Iraq to provide
additional security for the camp’s residents and to find the
perpetrators and hold them accountable for the attack, consistent with
its obligations under the December 25, 2011 agreement with the United
Nations.We are consulting with the Government of Iraq to ascertain the full extent of this unprovoked attack.No matter the circumstances, on this point we remain absolute: the
United States remains committed to assisting the UN High Commissioner
for Refugees in the relocation of all Camp Hurriya residents to a
permanent and safe location outside of Iraq. We call on more countries
to assist in responding to this urgent humanitarian situation by
welcoming camp residents for relocation and by contributing to the fund
established by the United Nations to support their resettlement. The
Department, through its Senior Advisor for MEK Resettlement, will remain
actively engaged in the international effort to relocate the residents
of Camp Hurriya to safe, permanent locations as soon as possible.

The US government needed to make that statement and they need to do a
great deal more. This was addressed in the Senate Armed Services
Committee hearing of October 7th (covered in the October 10th snapshot). We'll note this exchange:

Senator Angus King: Several times you gentlemen used the term
"the US made assurances," the term "solemn promise,""guarantee," and
Col Martin, you mentioned a card. What did that card say? I'd like to
know specifically: what assurances were delivered, by whom and when?Colonel
Wesley Martin [Retired]: Yes, sir. This was the protected persons
status under the Geneva Convention. And I have a copy of it. If you
give me a second, I can find it real quick.Senator Angus King: Well I'd like to know what is says.Colonel Wesley Martin: Okay. Senator
Angus King: What I'm searching for here is what are the assurances
specifically and who delivered them and when. I think that's a fair
question given that seems to be the premise of this discussion.Colonel
Wesley Martin: "This card holder is protected person under the
agreement of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Should the assigned person"
uh, it's a little blurry "should an incident occur, we request that the
person contact the [US] military police brigade." And then it goes on
the agreement that they made: "You are being offered your release from
control and protection in exchange for your promise to comply with
certain regulations." And it clearly states they are protected, they
will not be -- they will not be arrested, they will not be harmed.

Senator Angus King: What did they have to do?Colonel Wesley Martin: And what they had to do, sir, is go ahead and sign an agreement --Senator Angus King: That's when they were moved from Ashraf to Liberty?

Colonel Wesley Martin: No, sir. That was a whole set of different
promises. If I may, sir, Senator McCain, [holding clipped stack of
papers], if I could, I'd like to make this submitted for the record.Senator Angus King: Well you can make it for the record but I want to know who made assurances -- Colonel Wesley Martin: Yes, sir.Senator
Angus King (Con't): -- and what those assurances were. And saying they
were protected person under the Geneva Convention isn't a promise that
the US will take you in. I just want to understand what the promise is
that we're being urged to honor.

Colonel Wesley Martin: Yes, sir. I understand. The first one is
they would be protected and they would remain at Camp Ashraf. That was
2004. That was with the US State Dept in agreement with the United
States Dept of Defense and [then-Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld
was the person that finally approved it -- but working with the State
Dept. The person that issued those cards, working with the Embassy, was
US Brigadier General David Phillips [. . .]

The US government made a promise and it has refused to honor it.

The Ashraf community could be resettled from Camp Liberty to outside Iraq in the blink of an eye.

At one point, John Kerry had tasked his friend with this assignment.

Despite holding the post for over a year, his friend didn't do anything but sit on his ass and collect a check.

Resettling less than 4,000 people does not require a year or even six months.

If the White House had the will, the desire, to resettle the Ashraf community, they would have been re-settled some time ago.

Struan Stevenson was a Member of the European Parliament from 1999 to
2014 and is an advocate for the Ashraf community. Judy Chu is a member
of the US House of Representatives and has repeatedly spoken out on
behalf of the Ashraf community.

If more would join their voices, the Iraqi government might keep their
word to protect the Ashraf community until they can be resettled outside
of Iraq.

Staying with violence, Wednesday, the US Defense Dept announced the latest bombings in Operation Inherent Failure:

Airstrikes in Iraq

Attack, bomber and fighter aircraft conducted 13 airstrikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of the Iraqi government:-- Near Huwayjah, two strikes struck two separate ISIL weapons and staging areas.-- Near Mosul, one strike destroyed an ISIL artillery piece.-- Near Ramadi, two strikes struck a large ISIL tactical unit
and destroyed an ISIL recoilless rifle, two ISIL rocket rails, eight
ISIL boats, two ISIL fighting positions and an ISIL heavy machine gun,
suppressed an ISIL heavy machine gun, and denied ISIL access to terrain.-- Near Sinjar, three strikes destroyed 33 ISIL fighting positions.-- Near Sultan Abdallah, two strikes destroyed an ISIL fighting position and suppressed an ISIL mortar position.

Canadian fighter planes have now been connected to a second airstrike
in Iraq that has been reviewed by the Pentagon for possible civilian
casualties, CBC's the fifth estate has learned.

[. . .]

The
Pentagon review, conducted in December, looked at a joint
Canadian-Australian bombing raid on a "suspected weapons factory" in
Fallujah, Iraq, on Dec. 21 in which a woman and a child were seen on
video emerging from the site after the airstrike.

The
child was picked up by someone on a motorcycle and transported to
hospital. The woman lay down on the side of the road, according to an
internal Pentagon report obtained by the fifth estate.

This
is the second case of alleged civilian casualties linked to Canadian
bombers. The first, on Jan. 21 in Kisik in Northern Iraq, was dismissed
by the Canadian military as non-credible.

Bombs dropped on Iraq are not falling on empty acres. And these bombs
also are not 'smart' and able to distinguish civilians from the Islamic
State.

The bombs are killing people and, yes, people include civilians.

The suffering never stops for the Iraqi people.

Today, heavy flooding met with a lack of public services in Iraq to creating flood waters.

AFP grasps
the distinction between a misfortune due to an act of nature and the
injustice when people are harmed as a result of a government doing
nothing:

Torrential rain caused chaos across several parts of Iraq on
Thursday, with the water causing thigh-high flooding on some Baghdad
streets and damaging camps for the displaced.

The storm that hit Baghdad on Wednesday evening was unusually violent and the first after a long, dry summer.The
poor condition of infrastructure in Baghdad, the second largest city in
the region with an estimated population of more than eight million,
resulted in spectacular flooding.

Knee high flood waters in parts of Baghdad are not a result of nature, not a misfortune.

Wael Grace (Al Mada) reports
there is a current rush to restore the damns in southern Iraq to
prevent a repeat of last year's massive flooding. If Iraq had a real
leader -- and not Nouri al-Maliki -- these dams would have been restored
in the dry season and there'd be no mad dash, a year later, to fix what
should have already been addressed.

For eight years, Nouri had the chance to improve Iraq's public infrastructure by providing adequate sanitation and sewage.

Instead, his son has high priced digs in London and a fleet of sports cars.

This despite the fact that the only job the son's held has been the government job Nouri gave him.

But the al-Malikis live large as a result of all the funds stolen from the Iraqi people.

Heavy rains are a misfortune.

The standing water, the tent cities?

They're an injustice.

And the latest cholera epidemic?

Tie it into Nouri's refusal to do public works projects and deliver potable water to the people.

Again, an injustice.

The longer Haider al-Abadi is prime minister (he took the post in the fall of 2014), the more Nouri's failures become his own.

The Economist offers a look at Haider's 'accomplishments' and it's not pretty.

We'll note one section:

He took to Facebook to announce the opening to traffic of the Green
Zone, the chunk of central Baghdad the Americans turned into a
government enclave in 2003 and which has bunged up the capital ever
since. But he only opened a single one-way road, disrupted by so many
checkpoints that the old routes are still faster.

And, check the archives, we called that out -- and the press pretending something important was happening -- in real time.

The supposed-to-be skeptical western press has instead turned out to be the most gullible of all.

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Elise Foley (Huffington Post) reports:When former New York Gov. Eliot
Spitzer (D) withdrew his plan to give driver's licenses to undocumented
immigrants in 2007, it was partially at the urging of then- (and
current) presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, the former governor
said in an podcast interview posted Thursday. While Clinton now supports driver's licenses
for undocumented immigrants, she flailed on the issue during her 2008
presidential bid. Eventually, the Democrat came down against Spitzer's
proposed measure to provide licenses to the undocumented.But Clinton went further than opposing the plan, Spitzer revealed on "The Axe Files,"
a podcast hosted by David Axelrod, a former adviser to President Barack
Obama (who went on to defeat Clinton in 2008). In fact, the campaign
asked Spitzer to drop the proposal altogether.

Thursday, October 28, 2015. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri
al-Maliki moves to oust Haider al-Abadi, the Pentagon continues mulling
tasking the US military with additional objectives in Iraq, and much
more.

Alsumaria reports the State of Law coalition is threatening to withdraw confidence in Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi.

Former prime minister and forever thug Nouri al-Maliki started State of
Law for the 2010 parliamentary elections when he decided he didn't want
to run on the Dawa ticket. Dawa is his political party but, again, his
political party wasn't good enough for him in 2010. He couldn't control
Dawa so he created State of Law.

And now State of Law has given al-Abadi an ultimatum.

Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) explains:Under his [Abadi's] sweeping reforms, also intended to
challenge a system blamed for undermining government forces in the
battle against Islamic State insurgents, the three positions of vice
president and three deputy prime ministers will be scrapped.Those offices had become vehicles for patronage for some of the most powerful people in Iraq.Some
politicians say the measures are unconstitutional and overreach the
powers of Abadi, who was emboldened by protesters who backed his
reforms."Recent unilateral
reform decisions created disagreements with the way Abadi is tackling
the reforms issue and pushed around 60 members of the State of Law to
send a message to Abadi urging him to include State of law in the
discussions," said another MP.

State of Law states Abadni has 72 hours to respond to the issues they are raising.

Otherwise?

They withdraw their support.

Which most likely means Abadi would fact a vote of no-confidence in the Parliament.

Such a move has not been made yet in post-2003 invasion Iraq; however, an effort was launched in the spring of 2011.

Nouri al-Maliki's failure to implement The Erbil Agreement led Shi'ite
cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr, Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi,
KRG President Massoud Barzani and others to team up and start the
process.

They started the petition and collected the necessary signatures.

The next step was for Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to present the petition to Parliament.

Pressured by the US government, Jalal announced he had to vet the signatures first.

But he went further.

MPs were not only asked if they signed it, they were also asked if they
would sign it still if they were presented with it right now.

Jalal claimed that some who had signed answered "no" to the second
question so they could not be counted as signatures -- even though they
signed.

He refused to present the petition to Parliament.

Then he fled the country to Germany with the lie that he needed to leave the country due to a life or death health emergency.

In reality, he had elective knee surgery.

Karma would bit Jalal in his fat ass over that lie.

December 2012, Iraqi
President Jalal
Talabani suffered a stroke. The incident took place late on December
17th (see the December 18th snapshot) and resulted in Jalal being admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital. Thursday, December 202012,
he was moved to Germany. He remained there for a year and a half.
When he returned to Iraq finally, he was still in no condition to face
the Iraqi people. Nor has he recovered sufficiently in the time since.

Prime Minister Abadi took office after a long political struggle. His
predecessor, Nouri al-Maliki, insisted on a third term for himself,
but part of the Dawa Party leadership, in addition to other political
parties, opposed his candidacy. Maliki had become a burden in the eyes
of some Dawa members because most of the other political
movements refused to back him, and the party would not be able to form a
government without entering into a coalition with other movements.Unable to get rid of Maliki on their own, his Dawa opponents resorted to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani to address the crisis surrounding the premiership, asking him to issue a decision
to settle the dispute among the Shiite political class. On June 25,
2014, Sistani responded, stating, “I believe a new consensual prime
minister acceptable to all parties must be elected immediately — a prime
minister who can deal with all the political components of the country to save it from the dangers of terrorism, sectarian war and division.” Sistani’s statement suggested that he opposed Maliki’s nomination as
well and wanted the Dawa Party — the largest bloc in the National
Alliance, winner of the 2014 parliamentary elections
— to nominate a candidate acceptable to the other parties. Thus, Abadi
became prime minister through Sistani's indirect support. After Abadi
took office, Sistani received him
in Najaf on Oct. 20. The ayatollah had refrained for three years from
receiving Maliki in protest of his mismanagement of Iraqi governance.The Dawa Party is at the moment divided into two parts. Abadi’s bloc
wants to preserve close relations with the United States, keep
some distance between Baghdad and Tehran, avoid hostile relations with
Saudi Arabia and bring about national reconciliation, including good
relations with the Kurds and Sunnis. Maliki’s bloc, however, has
explicitly aligned itself with Iran, is hostile toward Saudi Arabia and
the United States to the extent of suggesting Abadi approach Russia and
is unwaveringly pro-Shiite, including backing for Shiite militias. On
Oct. 27, the Maliki bloc withdrew its support from
Abadi following the prime minister's apointment of Imad al-Khersan as
secretary-general of the Cabinet on Oct. 20. Khersan is an Iraqi
American who worked with the US occupation administrator Paul Bremer as
an American official after 2003.The animosity between Abadi and Maliki has become conspicuous. In March, Abadi accused Maliki of having been reckless with the blood of the Iraqi people,
a reference to the heavy loss of life inflicted by the Islamic State
and other extremists during Maliki’s tenure. More recently, on Oct. 3,
Abadi supposedly referred to Maliki as the “leader of necessity”
who during elections squandered billions of dollars of Iraqi funds,
dispensing the nation's wealth in the hope of attracting votes. Iraqis
had also used the same term to describe Hussein. After several warnings from Maliki, Abadi's office issued a clarification
Oct. 7 stating that “commander of necessity” was a reference to
Saddam, not Maliki. Maliki’s office preferred to interpret the statement
as an apology rather than a clarification.

The threat of a no confidence vote comes as Abadi moves forward with another unpopular move. Zaid Sabah and Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) note, "Iraq is planning unprecedented salary cuts for senior civil servants, as
a more than year-long war against Islamic State and the plunge in oil
prices deepen the nation's financial crisis."

The Pentagon is considering plans that would place U.S. advisers
closer to ground combat in Iraq and Syria in a move that could amount
to a major escalation in its war against the Islamic State, a senior
defense official told USA TODAY.[. . .]The options under consideration include placing U.S.
advisers alongside local combat units in Iraq and embedding a small
number of U.S. advisers with Syrian forces fighting the Islamic State,
the official said.

This consideration was obvious in Tuesday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing covered in Wednesday's Iraq snapshot where we noted:

Certainly, the press reports on Tuesday's hearing haven't emphasized this reality.But they've told you that the war in Iraq will increase in scope and size.And while I don't doubt that will be the outcome, that's really not what was being said on Tuesday.It is fair to say that Dunford and Carter will be recommending increased US troop participation in Iraq and Syria to Barack.That's all that it's fair to say.Carter's not the best speaker under ideal circumstances.Badgered by Senator Lindsey Graham (and he was badgered -- more so than
by Chair John McCain), Carter tends to struggle for words.He stated things in the present and as though they were happening
(again, he's not the best speaker). But he also stated, in calm
moments, that the president had asked for recommendations and was open
to hearing them.That Carter and Dunford want to increase participation of US troops in
Iraq is not in doubt by the testimony. But some reports are taking
their statements and portraying this as the new policy.Barack has not made any decision yet.If he caught any of the hearings (or just a recap from a staffer), he
knows where Carter and Dunford stand (as should the whole world). But
per the testimonies offered by both Carter and Dunsford, they have yet
to make formal recommendations to Barack.

Last Thursday saw the announcement that US Master Sgt Joshua Wheeler had died from combat injuries.

This announcement was followed by multiple denials from the White House
that US troops were in combat in Iraq. In Tuesday's Senate Armed
Services Committee hearing, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and the
Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joe Dunford spoke of the risks and,
yes, combat US forces were already in in Iraq.

But on Wednesday, Col. Steve Warren, a U.S. military spokesman in
Baghdad, described the mission in blunt terms. “We’re in combat,” he
said, speaking via video feed to reporters at the Pentagon. “That’s why
we all carry guns. That’s why we all get combat patches when we leave
here. That’s why we all receive imminent danger pay. So, of course it’s
combat.”

Finally, on the topic of violence, the US Defense Dept announced:

Airstrikes in IraqAttack, bomber and fighter aircraft conducted 14 airstrikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of the Iraqi government:-- Near Mosul, two strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical
units and destroyed two ISIL fighting positions and an ISIL heavy
machine gun.-- Near Ramadi, two strikes struck a large ISIL tactical unit
and destroyed four ISIL fighting positions and two ISIL light machine
guns.-- Near Samarra, one strike destroyed four ISIL fighting positions.-- Near Sinjar, four strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical
units, destroyed 11 ISIL fighting positions and suppressed an ISIL
mortar position.-- Near Sultan Abdallah, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.

Wednesday, October 28, 2015. Chaos and violence continue, the Defense
Dept wants to expand the war in Iraq, what did Haider al-Abadi tell
Russia, and much more.

Senator Jack Reed observed Tuesday morning, "However, taken as a whole
the ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] have not shown a will to make necessary
advances in the operation to take Ramadi for example. And the political
leaders in Baghdad have not made the progress needed in the broader
agenda of improving the inclusiveness of the Iraqi government and
addressing the long standing grievances of Kurds, Sunnis, moderate Shias
and minorities."

The political aspect?

June 19, 2014, US President Barack Obama publicly insisted that the only
answer to Iraq's various crises was a political solution.

Despite that public proclamation, when he implemented his plan or 'plan'
for Iraq in August 2014, there was no focus on a political solution.

No focus then or since -- not in the fifteen months and counting of the plan or 'plan' being implemented.

Where is the political solution?

As Senator Reed noted, "the political leaders in Baghdad have not made
the progress needed in the broader agenda of improving the inclusiveness
of the Iraqi government and addressing the long standing grievances of
Kurds, Sunnis, moderate Shias and minorities."

Barack was correct when he declared the need for a political solution.

Until the political grievances of average Sunnis are addressed, we
will simply be adjusting tactics to manage a conflict instead of
developing a strategy to stop it.So what were Sunnis so aggrieved about from 2011-2013 that it could result in the horrific wars of today?Sunnis in Iraq fear their Shiite-majority government and, worse, the
Shiite militias controlled by Iran and the Iraqi police. In Syria,
average people, mainly Sunnis, wanted to throw off the yoke of an
oppressive regime with a history of mass murder of Sunnis and favoring
citizens that are adherents to an offshoot of Shia Islam. In short,
Sunnis wanted a government and security forces that treated them fairly
and humanely.But Syrian and Iraqi government crackdowns in 2011, 2012, and 2013 in
response to Sunni protests in Iraq and mass protests in Syria gave
radicals a toehold among average Sunnis who turned to them for
protection and a means to forcefully air their grievances. That toehold,
of course, has grown wildly out of control.

The only real solution to the war and instability in Syria and Iraq
will be a political one that resolves those Sunni grievances.

These issues are not being addressed by Barack's plan or 'plan.'

"I think my question would be what is our end game?" Senator Joe Manchin
asked before offering what may be the biggest understatement of
Tuesday, "And the end game would be we've been there bogged down for
some time."

Manchin and Reed were speaking at Tuesday's Senate Armed Services
Committee hearing. Reed is the Ranking Member, John McCain is the
Committee Chair. Appearing before the Committee were US Secretary of
Defense Ash Carter and the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Joe
Dunford.

If Manchin offered the biggest understatement, the biggest overstatement?

Secretary Ash Carter: I-I-I-I'll take that, Senator. For us, the
paramount objective is the defeat of ISIL. That will require --Senator Joe Manchin: That's our number one priority right now in Syria?Secretary Ash Carter: -- because they're trying to attack American.Senator Joe Manchin: I got you.Secretary Ash Carter: So we've got to take that very seriously.

American what?

Airlines?

What are they trying to attack, Ash Carter?

Apparently ISIL, ISIS, the Islamic State, whatever you call them are this huge threat to the United States.

Or that's how Carter would like to portray it.

Let's leave that fear fantasy alone and move back to reality.

Senator Jim Inhofe: I appreciate the fact that both the Chairman and
you, Secretary Carter, mentioned by name, Josh Wheeler. Josh Wheeler is
from Rowland, Oklahoma. He is one who certainly -- He was a hero long
before all of this happened and by his actions he saved 70 lives of
hostages and fellow members in the Coalition Task Force. So I appreciate
very much your talking about him. Since you were here before, Secretary
Carter, in July, ISIL still controls much of the northern, western Iraq
despite more than a year of US air strikes. And the loss of Ramadi?
Significant setback. [. . .] What is the current status of Falluja?Gen Joe Dunford: Falluja right now is being held by insurgents and
is one of the areas that's been identified for future operations by
Iraqi Security Forces. Senator Jim Inhofe: Well that's --
Chair John McCain laughs.Chair John McCain: That's comforting to know it's been identified.

As Iraqi Spring MC noted Tuesday, that US House Rep Jim McGovern was against the Iraq War from before it started. Monday, his office released the following:

Oct 26, 2015

Press Release

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jim McGovern (MA-02), a senior House Democrat and leading voice in the push for stronger Congressional oversight of U.S. military engagement abroad, released the following statement on news today that the Pentagon is considering greater U.S. military involvement in Iraq as part of the war against ISIS.“Today’s report that the Pentagon is considering embedding some U.S.
troops with Iraqi forces as part of the war against ISIS – bringing
American forces to the front lines – is extremely concerning. We have
been repeatedly reassured that the U.S. would not have a combat role in
the war against ISIS, but this suggests just the opposite.“This potential escalation is just the latest evidence that it is
long past time for Congress to act. Our brave men and women in uniform
are doing their duty. It’s time for members of Congress to do our duty
by voting on an Authorization for the Use of Military Force that clearly
defines the U.S. military campaign against ISIS before it becomes
another endless war.”

Senator Tim Kaine: Is it fair to assume -- we pray that this is not
the case -- that the death of Master Sgt Josh Wheeler may not be the
last death of an American service member to defeat ISIL?Secretary Ash Carter: I think we need to be realistic. We are -- Our
people will be in positions -- they are right now, every day -- there
are people flying right now, there are people training and advising
forces there and they are in harms way, there's no doubt about it.Senator Tim Kaine: And we've lost service personnel before Master
Sgt Wheeler, not necessarily in direct combat or kinetic activities but,
as you say, they were in positions of danger because of their support
for this mission against ISIL?Secretary Ash Carter: Yes. Make no mistake, they're in harms way in this fight against ISIL, no doubt about it.Senator In your professional judgment, your notion that the primary objective is the defeat of ISIL, how long will that take?Secretary Ash Carter: It needs to be -- I can't tell you.

No, he can't tell you.

And that should outrage the American people.

It should outrage the world.

There's a mission -- allegedly -- and there's no end date.

There's also no real end envisioned.

You need to grasp that.

Carter was asked in the hearing if he could see down the line the United
States going into other countries -- beyond Iraq, Syria and Libya -- to
fight the Islamic State and he hastily agreed that was absolutely
within the realm of possibilities.

Barack, like Bully Boy Bush before him, has begun a never ending campaign of war.

But they've told you that the war in Iraq will increase in scope and size.

And while I don't doubt that will be the outcome, that's really not what was being said on Tuesday.

It is fair to say that Dunford and Carter will be recommending increased US troop participation in Iraq and Syria to Barack.

That's all that it's fair to say.

Carter's not the best speaker under ideal circumstances.

Badgered by Senator Lindsey Graham (and he was badgered -- more so than
by Chair John McCain), Carter tends to struggle for words.

He stated things in the present and as though they were happening
(again, he's not the best speaker). But he also stated, in calm
moments, that the president had asked for recommendations and was open
to hearing them.

That Carter and Dunford want to increase participation of US troops in
Iraq is not in doubt by the testimony. But some reports are taking
their statements and portraying this as the new policy.

Barack has not made any decision yet.

If he caught any of the hearings (or just a recap from a staffer), he
knows where Carter and Dunford stand (as should the whole world). But
per the testimonies offered by both Carter and Dunsford, they have yet
to make formal recommendations to Barack.

Again, I have no doubt that this is where it's headed, no doubt that
Barack will go along with the suggestions but, to be clear, these
recommendations have not been formally made to him yet.

Let's go back to the exchange noted above for one more aspect.Senator Tim Kaine: Is it fair to assume -- we pray that this is not
the case -- that the death of Master Sgt Josh Wheeler may not be the
last death of an American service member to defeat ISIL?Secretary Ash Carter: I think we need to be realistic. We are -- Our
people will be in positions -- they are right now, every day -- there
are people flying right now, there are people training and advising
forces there and they are in harms way, there's no doubt about it.Senator Tim Kaine: And we've lost service personnel before Master
Sgt Wheeler, not necessarily in direct combat or kinetic activities but,
as you say, they were in positions of danger because of their support
for this mission against ISIL?Secretary Ash Carter: Yes. Make no mistake, they're in harms way in this fight against ISIL, no doubt about it.

Recent days have seen reports that Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has invited Russia to take part in air strikes. James Poulos (The Week) wrote Monday:How bad is it in Iraq today? Here's one way to answer the question:
The government in Baghdad just allowed Russia to start bombing targets
on Iraq's home soil.The territory in question, of course, now belongs to the Islamic State. And the decision, reports by the International Business Times,
"comes just days after a U.S. diplomatic envoy sought assurances from
the Baghdad government that it would not allow Russian jets to conduct
operations inside Iraq."

That makes this a big embarrassment for America. And it's hardly the only one.

This issue was raised by Senator Tom Cotton and the response is as follows.

Secretary Ash Carter: We have received -- and I believe Gen Dunford
received just last week -- from Prime Minister Abadi in no uncertain
terms the statement that he will not work with the Russians. He will
not allow them to uh-uh-uh be partners with Iraq in that regard that we
are the preferred partners of Iraq. We've been insistent on that point.
And-and Prime Minister Abadi has repeated those pledges to us. I only
say that because I-we feel emphatic about receiving those pledges and,
uh, intend to have them implemented by Prime Minister Abadi. But he has
not been ambiguous about that. And I believe the most recent
conversation was held by Gen Dunford. And perhaps you [Dunford] would
like to say something about that? It's a serious issue. Gen Joe Dunford: No, Senator, I raised it both with the Minister of
Finance and the Prime Minister and, again, tried to explain to them that
our continued support really would be problematic were they to invite
the Russians in to conduct strikes. I was assured that they had not
extended that invitation and they did not intend to extend an invitation
to do that.

The Iraqi Commission of Integrity (CoI) spokesman Adil Nouri has claimed
that half of the government's oil income and funds for reconstruction
were 'stolen' and 'vanished' from Iraq during the 8-year period of
office of former President Nouri Maliki.
Speaking at the Iraqi Parliament, Nouri said that around 500 billion
dollars from government coffers has "disappeared" and is perhaps the
greatest corruption in history.

Underlining that Iraq's oil income between 2006 and 2014 alone was only $
822 billion, he said that the Maliki government had also received more
than $250 billion in funds from many countries, namely the U.S., used to
pay the salaries and pensions of Iraqi government workers and for
reconstruction projects.

The corruption of Nouri al-Maliki's reign was well known at the time --
and we noted it here repeatedly. Now that he's out of power (for now), a
little honesty can finally trickle out.

The IMF [International Money Fund] is warning that Iraq can be

Last week, the Iraq Times reported Nouri was eager to return to
Parliament. Having been stripped of his post as one of Iraq's three
vice presidents, the paper reported Nouri was frantic to avoid any
criminal charges and was eager to return to Parliament to have immunity.

Some may find that especially ironic in light of Nouri's actions at the
end of 2011 and through the end of his second term as prime minister
(August 2014).

As the bulk of US forces left Iraq in December 2011, Nouri turned on the Sunni politicians.

Nouri would then try Tareq en absentia and in a kangaroo court.
Witnesses were tortured -- potential witnesses were tortured to the
point that they died.

Nouri's kangaroo court would hand down several death sentences for Tareq.

This despite the fact that Parliament refused to strip Tareq al-Hashemi of his post as Vice President.

This despite the immunity from prosecution the Iraqi Constitution
guaranteed Tareq for the duration of his term as Vice President.

And yet now Nouri, stripped of his title of Vice President, is in a panic about his own potential immunity (or lack of it).

Nouri's legacy to Iraq is not a positive one.

There's the corruption, the theft, yes.

There's also the collapse and the brink of disaster.

In Tuesday's hearing, Nouri al-Maliki's name came up frequently. One
example, Secretary Ash Carter, "The legacy of Prime Minister Maliki was
to make the armed forces of Iraq more sectarian to the detriment of the
Sunnis -- that's one of the things that led to ISIL."

Airstrikes in IraqAttack, bomber and fighter aircraft conducted 12 airstrikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of the government of Iraq:-- Near Kisik, three strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and
destroyed three ISIL fighting positions and suppressed two ISIL machine
gun positions.-- Near Ramadi, three strikes struck a large ISIL tactical unit
and destroyed eight ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL vehicle bomb, four
ISIL heavy machine guns and an ISIL artillery piece and also suppressed
an ISIL cannon and denied ISIL access to terrain.

The World Health Organization (WHO) announced
today that it would start vaccine treatments for cholera beginning this
weekend to prevent further outbreaks in Iraq, where the disease has now
been confirmed in 15 out of 18 governorates, while the agency also
reported a suspected case was also found in northern Syria.
WHO spokesperson Christian Lindmeier told the regular press briefing in
Geneva, Switzerland, that the latest laboratory tests had confirmed
1,942 cases and two deaths in 15 out of 18 governorates in Iraq.
“On 31 October, WHO will begin, in conjunction with the Ministry of
Health, the oral cholera vaccine treatment, and will use 510,000 of the
global stock pile to ensure that 255,000 internally displaced persons
and refugees in the affected areas will receive two doses,” the
spokesperson said.
Mr. Lindmeier said “while this number of vaccines was not enough to
vaccinate everyone, it should, however, be a strategic vaccination to
block the path of the disease and prevent further outbreaks.”
In addition to the vaccine campaign, diarrhoeal disease kits and 600,000
chlorine tablets had been distributed in the infected areas, 48
national health staff had been trained in cholera and laboratory
procedures, and a team of international experts have been deployed to
assist the Iraqi’s Ministry of Health, he said.